UUA Internationalhttps://www.uua.org/international/blog
International Programs of the UUA
https://assets.uua.org/sites/live-new.uua.org/files/styles/scaled_960_wide_no_upscale/public/intl_office_vertical_0.jpg?itok=kizhLvH-UUA Internationalhttps://www.uua.org/international/blog
enWorking Cooperatively Workshttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/UuaInternational/~3/jCt9wFJZN4I/working-cooperatively-works
<div class="thumbnail"><img src="https://assets.uua.org/sites/live-new.uua.org/files/styles/square_480x480/public/iaea_directorgeneral.jpg?itok=HgGBYt1U" style="width:160px;height:initial;float:left;margin-right:1em;margin-bottom:1em;" width="480" height="480" alt="Yukiya Amano, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency" title="Photo copyright IAEA" /></div>
<p class="author"><a href="https://www.uua.org/node/213003">Joanne Dufour</a></p>
<div class="body"><p>It seems time for some more good news. In opening up the homepage from the International Atomic Energy Agency website, <a href="https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/eu-and-iaea-review-progress-and-agree-on-priorities-in-nuclear-cooperation-at-annual-meeting">the lead article read</a>: “EU and IAEA Review Progress and Agree on Priorities in Nuclear Cooperation at Annual Meeting.” There it was: an actual story of agreement and cooperation!</p></div>
<p class="more"><a href="https://www.uua.org/international/blog/disarmament/working-cooperatively-works">Continue reading Working Cooperatively Works on UUA.org.</a></p><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/UuaInternational/~4/jCt9wFJZN4I" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>Wed, 20 Mar 2019 14:55 -0400Joanne Dufourhttps://www.uua.org/international/blog/disarmament/working-cooperatively-worksWorking Cooperatively Works]]>Joanne Dufour]]>It seems time for some more good news. In opening up the homepage from the International Atomic Energy Agency website, the lead article read: “EU and IAEA Review Progress and Agree on Priorities in Nuclear Cooperation at Annual Meeting.” There it was: an actual story of agreement and cooperation! The article went on to discuss what happened at their seventh annual Senior Officials Meeting in Luxembourg on Feb 12th, 2019, where members of both the European Union and the International Atomic Energy Agency gathered to evaluate their work together.

The delegates recognized the progress they’d made and agreed to further enhance cooperation. How grand! “The talks provided a forum for exchanging views on strengthening collaboration on nuclear safety, security, safeguards and nuclear research, innovation and training,” especially commending the progress of those first three. “Nuclear safety and security remain a major priority in the EU” and last year was the first ever “topical peer review on ageing management of nuclear power plants and research reactors.” These services were being widely used by EU members to fulfil their legal obligations on nuclear safety and waste management, supporting continuous safety improvements.

“The EU reiterated its support for the IAEA’s role in verifying and monitoring the implementation of Iran’s nuclear-related commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).” It is helpful to note that the effectiveness of the inspectors depends upon the extent to which a government provides information and access to its nuclear sites. For example the Democratic Republic of Korea (North Korea) joined the IAEA in 1974, but withdrew in 1994. In 2018 IAEA efforts to monitor their nuclear activity was limited. They were allowed to observe activities but were not allowed access to verify their purpose. By contrast Iran became a member in 1958 and has allowed monitoring including their compliance with the JCPOA on an ongoing basis. The IAEA Director General reported on the agency's most recent activity to the IAEA Board of Governors in March 2019.

However, the only news we usually hear about is casual reference to the work of the IAEA in Iran or North Korea. It’s time to consider what other work is going on in this important agency.

Yukiya Amano, Director General of IAEA, at a recent meeting of the Board of Governors in Vienna.

Let’s start with a bit of history. The year was 1953 and President Dwight Eisenhower was addressing the UN General Assembly at the opening of their 8th session. The Cold War was just beginning with testing of nuclear weapons by Russia, Great Britain, and the United States, growing discussion, research, and fear of the use of nuclear energy. The President announced a plan of “Atoms for Peace”, recognizing the need for the peaceful uses of the atom. By 1957 his words came to life with the creation of a new agency called the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), born on July 27th with the US ratification of the senate based on his 1953 speech.

From its beginning, the agency’s mandate was to “work with Member States and multiple partners worldwide to promote the safe, secure and peaceful uses of nuclear technology”. However, the mandate was dual in nature: to promote and to control the atom. “It shall ensure, so far as it is able that assistance provided by it or its request or under its supervision or control is not used in such a way as to further any military purpose.” Hence inspections to control/monitor military installations, in compliance with government accountability to treaty provisions, Security Council resolutions, or disarmament undertakings.

So as of today, the International Atomic Energy Agency is the “world's central intergovernmental forum for scientific and technical co-operation in the nuclear field. It works for the safe, secure and peaceful uses of nuclear science and technology, contributing to international peace and security and the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals.”

As of Feb 2, 2019, total state membership in the IAEA is 171. The main headquarters (decided at the first meeting of the membership in 1957) is in Vienna, Austria. Regional offices were set up in Toronto, Tokyo, New York City, and Geneva, with laboratories specializing in peaceful nuclear technology established in Austria and Monaco.

Farmers are selecting their preferred varieties of cowpea, on the basis of factors such as growth duration, during a field trial.

The IAEA has a wide range of topics it works on: energy, health, and environmental issues as well as the areas of water, food, and agriculture. Under the area of nuclear safety and security, the agency works on nuclear installation safety, radiation protection, security of nuclear and other radioactive material, transport, and emergency awareness and response. Safeguards and verification work includes defining of basic safeguards, implementing them, developing legal frameworks, and offering assistance to member states.

The IAEA helps the advancement of this broad field by calling conferences for sectors of professionals to encourage sharing of experiences and research. For an example of how this process – one very familiar in the United Nations system – works for the IAEA, consider the planning that is going into a conference in Vienna in June 2019: the International Conference on the Management of Spent Fuel from Nuclear Power Reactors 2019. Main topics to be covered so far are identified along with scope and objectives, key deadlines, greening: how the conference is being organized according to the guidelines of the Austrian Ecolable (areas of paper smart documentation, waste reduction and recycling, and environmentally friendly catering) audience, and the conference app. Once proposals are accepted, the program will be organized and posted.

A glance at the titles of their weekly newsletter gives you a further idea of the nature of their work. Recent articles include:

While efforts are underway to ban the use of nuclear weapons, the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes continues thanks to the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

]]>https://www.uua.org/international/blog/disarmament/working-cooperatively-worksThe INF and the Danger of a Renewed Nuclear Arms Racehttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/UuaInternational/~3/AGQp0iGhNtI/inf-and-danger-renewed-nuclear-arms-race
<div class="thumbnail"><img src="https://assets.uua.org/sites/live-new.uua.org/files/styles/square_480x480/public/gorbachev_reagan.jpg?itok=97OCfwjW" style="width:160px;height:initial;float:left;margin-right:1em;margin-bottom:1em;" width="480" height="480" alt="Soviet Union and United States Presidents Gorbachev and Reagan sign the INF treaty" title="Photo courtesy Ronald Reagan Presidential Library" /></div>
<p class="author"><a href="https://www.uua.org/node/208836">Jerald Ross</a></p>
<div class="body"><p>On Feb. 1, the Trump administration announced it will pull the U.S. out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty (INF), thus undoing one of the pillars of global security and potentially plunging the world into a new nuclear arms race. The 1987 signing of this treaty by U.S. President Ronald Reagan and then Soviet Union Premier Mikhail Gorbachev is often called the beginning of the end of the Cold War. At the time, it prohibited a whole class of extremely dangerous and destabilizing nuclear weapons from being deployed by both nations.</p></div>
<p class="more"><a href="https://www.uua.org/international/blog/disarmament/inf-and-danger-renewed-nuclear-arms-race">Continue reading The INF and the Danger of a Renewed Nuclear Arms Race on UUA.org.</a></p><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/UuaInternational/~4/AGQp0iGhNtI" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>Wed, 06 Mar 2019 14:15 -0500Jerald Rosshttps://www.uua.org/international/blog/disarmament/inf-and-danger-renewed-nuclear-arms-raceThe INF and the Danger of a Renewed Nuclear Arms Race]]>Jerald Ross]]>

President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev signing the INF Treaty in the East Room of the White House.

On Feb. 1, the Trump administration announced it will pull the U.S. out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty (INF), thus undoing one of the pillars of global security and potentially plunging the world into a new nuclear arms race. The 1987 signing of this treaty by U.S. President Ronald Reagan and then Soviet Union Premier Mikhail Gorbachev is often called the beginning of the end of the Cold War. At the time, it prohibited a whole class of extremely dangerous and destabilizing nuclear weapons from being deployed by both nations. But more, it began a period of sustained negotiations vastly reducing U.S. and (now) Russian nuclear arsenals.

Why were these missiles so dangerous? Their shorter range and proposed deployment in Europe meant their time in flight was far shorter, making them more difficult to detect and vastly reducing the threat assessment time. They would have put the world on the hair- trigger edge of Armageddon. President Reagan affirmed the importance of the INF with his assertion, “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” Such dramatic and hard-earned wisdom appears to have been lost on our current leaders.

President Trump based his decision to withdraw from this seminal treaty on the accusation of Russia’s earlier deployment of its 9M729 cruise missile, saying this had already violated the treaty. The Russians, of course, deny this, and assert the planned U.S. missile defense system in Poland will actually violate the treaty. This is what we did during the Cold War - exchange allegations and build more missiles.

By ending participation in this treaty, the U.S. will be free to develop its own shorter range “lower yield” nuclear missiles, which Trump had already proposed in his 2018 nuclear posture review. Most experts assess that this expansion of U.S. nuclear capabilities is in fact directed at China and the perceived challenges in the South China Sea. There were of course many avenues to address legitimate security concerns within the framework of our international agreements, including negotiating an expansion of the INF to include China. But Trump instead chose to flaunt this long-established framework, once again demonstrating the peril that our international order based on rules and agreements faces with an administration that emphasizes “America First.”

Representatives of civil society, arms-control experts, and global security analysts from around the world have roundly decried this reckless step. Trump’s decision comes at a time when the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has moved the hands of the doomsday clock to two minutes to midnight and a majority of the world’s nations have adopted a UN treaty instead to eliminate nuclear weapons. Despite all these warnings and a clear majority of U.S. public opinion opposed to the expansion of nuclear armaments, President Trump has chosen to open the way to a new and criminally dangerous nuclear arms race.

President Putin, not surprisingly, responded to Trump’s threats by announcing Russia would withdraw from the INF treaty if the U.S. did. Such totalitarian responses in the face of overwhelming public opinion supporting these treaties led the United Nations’ nuclear disarmament platform UNFOLD ZERO to characterize these developments as a “defect in democracy” in both our respective nations. Representatives of civil society from 40 countries have sent a joint appeal to Presidents Trump and Putin calling on them to preserve the INF Treaty and resolve nuclear-weapons and security issues through negotiation rather than confrontation. It also calls on legislatures to refuse to authorize funding for nuclear weapons systems which the INF Treaty bans.

Given the slim chances of actually salvaging the INF at this point, what recourse do we as U.S. citizens have? For our part, we do have opportunities to influence our legislators and engage the broader public in this critically important issue. First of all, we can demand our representatives in the House refuse funding for any weapons that violate the terms of the INF and defund the nuclear arms build-up already begun by the Trump administration. Secondly, we can rally support for two important bills that have been introduced in Congress. One is a current version of the by-now familiar Markey-Lieu bill restricting presidential authorization for a nuclear attack without explicit congressional approval. Even more significant is H.R. 4415, a bill just introduced by House Armed Services Committee Chair Adam Smith (D-WA) that prohibits the United States from any “first use” of nuclear weapons. This bill has been co-sponsored in the Senate by Mass. Senator Elizabeth Warren. (As a point of information, China already has such an announced “no first use” policy.)

As informed activists, we need to do everything we can to alert our fellow citizens to the danger of this head-long rush into a renewed nuclear arms race. And we immediately need to contact our representatives in Congress to restrict funding for any nuclear arms expansion and urge support for these two vital bills.

]]>https://www.uua.org/international/blog/disarmament/inf-and-danger-renewed-nuclear-arms-raceSaving Democracy in Syriahttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/UuaInternational/~3/VhrDJ4Iwa4w/saving-democracy-syria
<div class="thumbnail"><img src="https://assets.uua.org/sites/live-new.uua.org/files/styles/square_480x480/public/womens_day_rojava.jpg?itok=ZwRJbAim" style="width:160px;height:initial;float:left;margin-right:1em;margin-bottom:1em;" width="480" height="480" alt="A group of women in Rojava holding banners and signs in celebration of International Women&#039;s Day" title="Image copyright RojavaPhoto" /></div>
<p class="author"><a href="https://www.uua.org/node/227071">Roy Meredith</a></p>
<div class="body"><p>A little-known experiment with radical democracy in northern Syria is underway. Known in Kurdish as Rojava, most of the region has been controlled by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) for nearly five years, where they have enacted policies mandating gender equality, direct democracy, and environmental restoration. Christians, Muslims, and Yazidis worship freely and fight together against ISIS. Community leaders operate facilities to help women escape abusive relationships and negotiate divorce.</p></div>
<p class="more"><a href="https://www.uua.org/international/blog/saving-democracy-syria">Continue reading Saving Democracy in Syria on UUA.org.</a></p><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/UuaInternational/~4/VhrDJ4Iwa4w" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>Fri, 01 Mar 2019 14:15 -0500Roy Meredithhttps://www.uua.org/international/blog/saving-democracy-syriaSaving Democracy in Syria]]>Roy Meredith]]>

Celebrating International Women's Day in Rojava.

A little-known experiment with radical democracy in northern Syria is underway. Known in Kurdish as Rojava, most of the region has been controlled by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) for nearly five years, where they have enacted policies mandating gender equality, direct democracy, and environmental restoration. Christians, Muslims, and Yazidis worship freely and fight together against ISIS. Community leaders operate facilities to help women escape abusive relationships and negotiate divorce. Although far from a paradise, Rojava is already one of the most stable and tolerant regions in the Middle East.

This nascent democracy is now in extreme danger. The predominantly Kurdish inhabitants of Rojava face a possible genocide in the coming months, but not from ISIS or Bashar Al-Assad’s regime. Instead, this new threat is none other than Turkey’s increasingly authoritarian president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. If President Donald Trump follows through on his pledge to withdraw the 3,000 American troops currently stationed in Syria, Turkey is certain to invade Rojava and massacre the local population. A member of NATO and one of the top military powers in the world, Turkey would make short work of the SDF. Why is Erdogan so hostile to the Kurds in Syria, and why is Trump willing to cut back military support for one of our strongest allies against ISIS?

It’s complicated. The Kurds themselves occupy a unique position in Middle Eastern politics. With a global population ranging between 30-40 million, the Kurds are the largest nation without a state of their own - most live in Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. Ethnic minorities in every country they inhabit, Kurds have consistently suffered oppression by authoritarian regimes over the past century. Turkey’s government has tried to ban their language and define them out of existence by labeling them “mountain Turks”, which in turn inspired many Kurds living there to wage a guerrilla war against the government the during the eighties and nineties. Before the civil war, Bashar Al-Assad’s regime in Syria forbade Kurdish holidays, stripped many of them of their citizenship, and targeted their businesses with discriminatory regulations.

The most horrific episode, however, was the Anfal genocide in northern Iraq during the final stages of the Iran-Iraq War. Furious that Kurdish insurgents had supported his wartime enemy, Saddam Hussein’s administration liquidated between 50,000 to 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis using a combination of targeted airstrikes, chemical weapons, and firing squads. Nationalism, in other words, has proven itself to be poisonous to Kurdish minorities on more than several occasions.

Consequentially, many Kurdish activists in the nineties became weary of establishing their own country, viewing the international paradigm of a nation-state as inherently hierarchical and oppressive. In Turkey, the imprisoned leader of the People’s Workers Party (PKK), Abdullah Ocalan, departed from Kurdish separatism and Marxist philosophy to embrace a radical combination of left-libertarianism, feminism, and environmentalism, which he termed Democratic Confederalism. Instead of agitating for a Kurdish nation-state, Ocalan now stresses that the most important political change occurs in local communities. Working lockstep with Ocalan, Kurdish women developed a unique brand of feminism known as Jineology. According to Jineology, the patriarchal oppression of women foreshadows all other forms of subjugation. Any revolution that aims to democratize society, therefore, must put women’s liberation at the heart of its aspirations and organizational framework. The PKK and affiliated groups attempted to enact elements of democratic confederalism in Turkey with mixed levels of success. Each time they made significant electoral gains, the Turkish government would either outlaw their organizations or ban their candidates from holding office.

The crisis in Syria in 2011 gave Ocalan’s followers in the Democratic Union Party (PYD), a PKK offshoot, the chance to test his ideas in a region outside of Ankara’s jurisdiction. The civil war became a magnet for political radicals of every kind, who saw a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to remake the Middle East. Of course, the most notorious organization was ISIS, which captured international headlines with its videotaped executions of journalists, indiscriminate attacks on civilians, and Yazidi slave markets. Two Kurdish militias, however, quickly established themselves as the Islamic State’s most capable adversaries: the People’s Protection Units (YPG), and the all-female Women’s Protection Units (YPJ). Convinced that death at the hands of a female combatant would send them to Hell, many ISIS fighters ran from battle at the sight of young women brandishing assault rifles.

YPJ fighters in Syria.

In 2012, Assad withdrew his troops from northern Syria to protect his home base in Damascus, creating a power vacuum in the region and an opportunity for the PYD to govern the region. They eschewed consolidating their territorial gains into a new nation-state. Consequently, the territories in Syria under Kurdish administration today are more like an alliance of small towns and cities than a single country. The residents of each neighborhood meet and vote directly on policies regarding electricity and resource distribution, and settle local disputes between neighbors. Unlike residents in the United States or Europe, for example, they seldom rely upon elected officials to legislate on their behalf.

There are, however, some common policies that apply to each administrative region. Perhaps the most famous is the gender quota: at least 40% of all members in each decision-making body must be women (except for all-female organizations), and every public organization has a male and female co-chair. Foreign volunteers in Rojava have also embarked on an ambitious campaign to restore the forests that were destroyed under Assad’s Ba’athist regime and the civil war, which they wryly dubbed “Make Rojava Green Again”. Indeed, numerous passages of Rojava’s new constitution explicitly call for the liberation of women, environmental justice, and rights for all political, ethnic, and religious minorities.

The most dramatic episode of the war against ISIS began on September 13th, 2014, when Jihadist militants bombarded the city of Kobane using confiscated Iraqi artillery and military equipment, including tanks, heat-seeking missiles, and night-vision goggles. Capturing the city was a necessary step towards ISIS establishing a continuous supply chain between two other towns it controlled in Syria. Despite suffering heavy losses and armed with little more than Kalashnikov rifles, grenades, and homemade tanks, the YPJ-YPG forces in Kobane managed to stand their ground against the invading army for months before receiving American air support. By January 27th, 2015, most of Kobane had been liberated. The failed siege was a fatal blow to ISIS’ international prestige. The number of foreign recruits thereafter fell rapidly, and the organization started losing territory to the emboldened YPJ-YPG fighters. In 2015, the Kurds aligned themselves with other militias to form the SDF, which liberated Raqqa from ISIS in 2017. As of this writing, ISIS holds less than 1.5 square miles of land, although the organization still commands thousands of fighters.

Farmers in Jinwar, a commune for women.

Erdogan views Rojava’s success as a direct challenge to his own religiously conservative and authoritarian political aspirations. Turkey’s official justification for its intense hostility towards Rojava is the PYD’s ideological kinship with the PKK. The Turkish government considers the PKK to be a terrorist organization, even though the PKK has upheld the Geneva Convention since 1995. Considering the fact that Turkey’s government has actively supported ISIS and other jihadist groups, this is a patently hypocritical statement for its political leadership to make.

In early 2018, the Turkish military and its Islamist allies invaded Afrin, Rojava’s westernmost district. The invasion displaced over 160,000 people, while Amnesty International documented credible reports of torture and looting in Afrin at the hands of Turkish-backed militias. Members of the SDF were flabbergasted when their erstwhile allies in America and Europe remained silent as Turkish artillery fired on their neighborhoods. “We are asking the Western powers to act on their principles,” wrote YPJ commander Nujin Derik last year in the New York Times. “Why are you not condemning a flagrant and unprovoked assault on the very men and women who stood shoulder to shoulder with you against the darkness of the Islamic State?”

During the invasion of Afrin, Erdogan was clear that he intended to return the region to its “original” Arab and Turkman owners, despite the fact that Kurds have historically made up the majority of the district’s population. In Turkey itself, most Kurdish media have been banned. Most disturbingly, Genocide Watch believes that Turkey is at risk of committing another large-scale massacre. Apparently, this information was lost on President Trump last December when he announced after a phone call with Erdogan that America would withdraw all its troops within four months. Without the military presence of another NATO member in Syria, Turkey would have no trouble expanding its influence in the region. The United Nations has also been hesitant to offer support.

[f]acing the extraordinary challenge of fighting a brutal enemy in a disciplined manner, the SDF has demonstrated a clear commitment to detain these individuals securely and humanely. The United States calls upon other nations to repatriate and prosecute their citizens detained by the SDF and commends the continued efforts of the SDF to return these foreign terrorist fighters to their countries of origin. Despite the liberation of ISIS-held territory in Iraq and Syria, ISIS remains a significant terrorist threat and collective action is imperative to address this shared international security challenge.

In addition to creating a new security risk, abandoning Rojava would constitute a grave injustice. The YPG and the YPJ have been instrumental in defeating ISIS and protecting the rest of the world from terrorism. For nearly a decade, they courageously battled adversaries equipped with superior weapons while creating a haven for refugees. And they have established a new model for democracy that can work in a diverse, multicultural environment. We owe them not only our gratitude, but protection from an existential threat across the border as well.

If you would like to find out more about how to help the residents of northern Syria, please visit the Emergency Committee for Rojava’s website and consider attending a meeting. You can also follow the Rojava Information Center on Twitter (@RojavaIC) for information from local activists and journalists. I am indebted to Meredith Tax, author of the book A Road Unforeseen, and Summer Koo. Both helped revise and correct the original drafts of this article.

]]>https://www.uua.org/international/blog/saving-democracy-syriaRacist Incident at NYU Silver School of Social Workhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/UuaInternational/~3/y3y9fdlZSpg/racist-incident-nyu-silver-school-social-work
<div class="thumbnail"><img src="https://assets.uua.org/sites/live-new.uua.org/files/styles/square_480x480/public/screenshot_nyu_racism.png?itok=8cAW_zpV" style="width:160px;height:initial;float:left;margin-right:1em;margin-bottom:1em;" width="480" height="480" alt="Screenshot of email with text highlighted &quot;Although, certainly it was also because I found it easier to lead the discussion without black presence in the room, since I do feel somewhat uncomfortable with the (perceived) threat that it poses&quot;" title="Image courtesy Twitter @NotShahem" /></div>
<p class="author"><a href="https://www.uua.org/node/231543">Christopher Longo</a></p>
<div class="body"><p>My name is Chris Longo and I am a gender equity intern at the Unitarian Universalist United Nations Office as well as a Master’s of Social Work student at New York University’s Silver School of Social Work (NYU Silver), where I focus on policy and advocacy.</p></div>
<p class="more"><a href="https://www.uua.org/international/blog/racist-incident-nyu-silver-school-social-work">Continue reading Racist Incident at NYU Silver School of Social Work on UUA.org.</a></p><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/UuaInternational/~4/y3y9fdlZSpg" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>Thu, 21 Feb 2019 14:45 -0500Christopher Longohttps://www.uua.org/international/blog/racist-incident-nyu-silver-school-social-workRacist Incident at NYU Silver School of Social Work]]>Christopher Longo]]>

Screenshot of an email received by a black student at NYU's Silver School of Social Work. He was going to have to miss class and had obtained permission from the professor to FaceTime into the class. After his classmates ignored his request to participate, one of them sent the student this email. More details of the incident.

My name is Chris Longo and I am a gender equity intern at the Unitarian Universalist United Nations Office as well as a Master’s of Social Work student at New York University’s Silver School of Social Work (NYU Silver), where I focus on policy and advocacy.

As you are undoubtedly aware, the UU-UNO works to bring the principles of Unitarian Universalism to the global stage. All of the interns in our office hail from prestigious universities in New York City including Fordham, Columbia, and NYU, where we all are attaining a master’s-level education in social work, a field with a mission and values that mirror the progressive ideology of Unitarian Universalist principles.

Recently, NYU Silver experienced an incident of overt racism in which one student informed another via email that it was easier to navigate a class discussion without the perceived threat of black presence.

This incident is inexcusable on the face of it, but it also reflects a systemic problem. This is not the first incident of overt racism to occur in classrooms in our most egalitarian spaces, it is simply the most recent instance to gain national social media attention. In the past week, students have begun reporting dozens of micro-aggressions and overt instances of racism in our classrooms. Since this incident, white students and professors have engaged in various forms of gaslighting of students of color and have made excuses for overt and subtle racism, the Washington Post and other major news outlets have reached out for comment, and the administration has put out various responses and workshops that seem placating and minimizing.

From this, students have begun mobilizing and organizing around the institutional racism of the program through unity, protest, media commentary, collective responses, and student-led meetings. This incident has reached well beyond NYU and has been discussed in classrooms in Columbia’s and Fordham’s social work programs as well.

As a UU-UNO intern from the NYU Silver School of Social Work, I wanted to take this opportunity to bring you all into the fold and let you know what you can do to help.

An Affinity Group Collective Response was sent to the school within 24 hours of the incident coming to light and has been receiving attention. This letter was originally penned by myself as a co-leader of a student group titled White Students Challenging Racism, and it was edited by various other student leaders before being signed and distributed to the collective student body. We invite you to read the response and sign it if you agree with its message.

Additionally, you can feel free to reach out to the school to express your opposition to the racist incident as well as to the systemic nature of racism and/or the inappropriate responses from white students and faculty members who have engaged in white apologism and gaslighting of students of color. This can be done either via mail (perhaps a letter campaign) or via phone.

Contact information:

ATTENTION: Dean Neil B. Guterman​
Silver School of Social Work
Ehrenkranz Center
1 Washington Square North
New York, NY 10003

This incident and the movement around it are important to communicate to Unitarian Universalist congregations. The necessary reckoning taking place right now at NYU’s school of Social Work echoes those within the Unitarian Universalist denomination and within the nation as a whole. As progressive institutions, we must be honest and open in confronting the power structures and norms that perpetuate intolerance and bigotry.

Our responsibilities within the UU United Nations Office extend far beyond that global diplomatic body. In the spirit of the United Nations’ International Decade for People of African Descent (2015-2024) all of our institutions must be transformed towards justice. As interns of the UU-UNO, our focus is to make this a reality not just inside the United Nations and within Unitarian Universalist communities, but in the larger world as well, such as our schools and government.

]]>https://www.uua.org/international/blog/racist-incident-nyu-silver-school-social-workReviving A Sound Approach For Central Americahttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/UuaInternational/~3/HaF9KuVoNRU/reviving-sound-approach-central-america
<div class="thumbnail"><img src="https://assets.uua.org/sites/live-new.uua.org/files/styles/square_480x480/public/obrador.jpg?itok=TaObknf4" style="width:160px;height:initial;float:left;margin-right:1em;margin-bottom:1em;" width="480" height="480" alt="Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador speaks at a podium with the seal of Mexico" title="Photo copyright Cuartoscuro Archivo" /></div>
<p class="author"><a href="https://www.uua.org/node/213003">Joanne Dufour</a></p>
<div class="body"><p>If you are old enough to have lived through it or have studied it, do you remember the Marshall Plan? Officially known as the European Recovery Program, the Marshall Plan was a 1948 American initiative to aid post-WWII Western Europe to rebuild their economies through economic assistance from the U.S.</p></div>
<p class="more"><a href="https://www.uua.org/international/blog/disarmament/reviving-sound-approach-central-america">Continue reading Reviving A Sound Approach For Central America on UUA.org.</a></p><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/UuaInternational/~4/HaF9KuVoNRU" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>Wed, 20 Feb 2019 13:45 -0500Joanne Dufourhttps://www.uua.org/international/blog/disarmament/reviving-sound-approach-central-americaReviving A Sound Approach For Central America]]>Joanne Dufour]]>

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has suggested a "Marshall Plan" to develop Central America and welcome migrants into Mexico.

If you are old enough to have lived through it or have studied it, do you remember the Marshall Plan? Officially known as the European Recovery Program, the Marshall Plan was a 1948 American initiative to aid post-WWII Western Europe to rebuild their economies through economic assistance from the U.S.

Amounting to about 5 % of the US gross domestic product at the time, the $12 billion in economic assistance (about $125 billion in 2019 USD) was distributed to 16 European countries on a per capita basis with larger amounts given to major industrial powers (Great Britain, France, and West Germany). While results of this four-year program have been debated over the years, the History Channel notes that “by the time of the plan’s last year, economic growth in the countries that had received funds had surpassed pre-war levels. A strong indicator of the program’s positive impact, at least economically.” The political effect was significant as it bonded the relationship between the U.S. and Europe, as well as furthering U.S. interests in the region.

Why bring this up now? USA Today has reported that the day after the inauguration of the new Mexican President, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador on Dec. 1, 2018, “one of his first acts in office was to sign an agreement with presidents of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, the ‘Northern Triangle’ countries from which the majority of migrants (crossing Mexico’s southern border) originate. The plan outlines a long-term strategy to foster development and strengthen the rule of law in the three nations” with no money for a wall. President Obrador has proposed a plan for $30 billion over five years in job-creating economic development assistance. “A ‘Marshall Plan’ for Central America, as his foreign secretary Marcelo Ebrard, put it.” He was sent to Washington on the same day seeking common ground.

At the time of writing, President Trump has met with the Mexican foreign secretary who indicated that the U.S. president had committed to grant $5.8 billion dollars for institutional reform and economic development in the Northern Triangle. A notice from the Department of State on Dec. 18th 2018 indicated the following:

“The United States is committing $5.8 billion through public and private investment to promote institutional reforms and development in the Northern Triangle. Recognizing the importance of promoting economic growth and opportunities for the people of the region, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) has already invested and mobilized more than $1 billion in the Northern Triangle since 2017 focused on infrastructure, energy, economic growth, and job creation.”

But, according to that same notice, the Administration had only requested $180 million in aid for the region in 2019.

And, the New York Times notes, “Mexico’s new plan is, in many respects, the opposite of Mr. Trump’s vow to crack down on migration, which includes building a wall, deploying the military and cutting aid to Central America.”

China has also expressed interest in financing this program. “’For a long time there has been this competition within Latin America for influence, where China is willing to invest billions in infrastructure and energy that the United States simply isn’t,’ said Duncan Wood, the director of the Mexico Institute at the Wilson Center.

The Mexican strategy to rely on the United States’ concerns about China’s expanding influence in the region reflects a growing sense in Mexico that it can no longer take cooperation with the United States for granted.”

There has been an increasing coverage of this proposal in news sources from New York to Los Angeles with most endorsing this plan in their editorials.

Whether or not this materializes remains to be seen. Support and encouragement to your legislators would be very helpful.

]]>https://www.uua.org/international/blog/disarmament/reviving-sound-approach-central-americaThe Wasteful and Dangerous Worldwide Nuclear Modernization Crazehttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/UuaInternational/~3/gmPstnfB2GY/wasteful-and-dangerous-worldwide-nuclear-modernization-craze
<div class="thumbnail"><img src="https://assets.uua.org/sites/live-new.uua.org/files/styles/square_480x480/public/deptenergy_oak_ridge550.jpg?itok=uxgcN_HQ" style="width:160px;height:initial;float:left;margin-right:1em;margin-bottom:1em;" width="480" height="480" alt="Photo of the Department of Energy of Oak Ridge" title="Photo credit: Department of Energy Oak Ridge" /></div>
<p class="author"><a href="https://www.uua.org/node/231058">John Mecklin</a></p>
<div class="body"><p><em>This article originally appeared as the <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2019.1555973">Introduction</a> to a Special issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: <a href="https://tandfonline.com/toc/rbul20/75/1?nav=tocList">Spotlight on nuclear modernization</a> on January 7, 2019, and is republished here with permission. </em></p></div>
<p class="more"><a href="https://www.uua.org/international/blog/disarmament/wasteful-and-dangerous-worldwide-nuclear-modernization-craze">Continue reading The Wasteful and Dangerous Worldwide Nuclear Modernization Craze on UUA.org.</a></p><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/UuaInternational/~4/gmPstnfB2GY" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>Wed, 06 Feb 2019 13:35 -0500John Mecklinhttps://www.uua.org/international/blog/disarmament/wasteful-and-dangerous-worldwide-nuclear-modernization-crazeThe Wasteful and Dangerous Worldwide Nuclear Modernization Craze]]>John Mecklin]]>This article originally appeared as the Introduction to a Special issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: Spotlight on nuclear modernization on January 7, 2019, and is republished here with permission.

The military is a prime breeding-ground for euphemism. During the Vietnam War, “pacification” often meant the shelling and bombing of villages and forced relocation of entire populations. The Reagan administration championed a fearsome, 10-nuclear-warhead intercontinental ballistic missile. Its name? “Peacekeeper.” Russia did not invade or annex Crimea, according to President Putin; it “enhanced” its forces there.

“Nuclear modernization” is a euphemism covering a wide range of activities that constitute, in the view of many experts, a new and dangerous global nuclear arms race. And an expensive one. In the United States, the 30-year cost of the plethora of programs under the nuclear modernization umbrella – including new nuclear-capable bombers, land-based nuclear missiles, and nuclear submarines – has been estimated at $1.2 to $1.7 trillion. Observers who remember the $640 toilet seats and $437 tape measures of Defense Department history believe that if the entire modernization program were actually funded and carried out, the cost would be much higher than these estimates.

In this issue, Bob Rosner of the University of Chicago and Stanford University’s Lynn Eden – leading nuclear experts who sit on the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board – give an overview of the astonishing complexities of the US modernization program and try to answer the core question: What does the United States need to do – and what could it reasonably not do – to ensure the reliability of its nuclear arsenal but reduce the cost of maintaining it? Another Science and Security Board member – former Obama administration arms control adviser Jon Wolfsthal – suggests that the first step in responsibly managing the US nuclear budget would require the Trump administration to actually develop a nuclear strategy. Andy Weber and Christine Parthemore of the Council on Strategic Risks, meanwhile, look at once-discarded nuclear weapon capabilities that the Trump administration has resurrected – particularly a proposed low-yield warhead for submarine-launched nuclear missiles and other “small nuke” options – and find them unnecessary and destabilizing.

The nuclear modernization craze is hardly restricted to the United States. As Carnegie Moscow Center director Dmitri Trenin notes, Russian leaders have always been keen observers of US nuclear policy, and as Russia nears the end of its own nuclear modernization cycle, strained East-West relations have created a dangerous situation. “Against a backdrop of deep mistrust,” Trenin writes, “the coming US withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the new US emphasis on tactical [nuclear] systems revive the specter of a nuclear war in Europe.” And because the US-China competition is turning “increasingly serious and even hostile,” Tong Zhao of the Carnegie–Tsinghua Center for Global Policy argues, the United States should take a number of steps to ease tensions. After all, Zhao notes, the United States is the most important external influencer of Chinese nuclear policy, and as such could prevent a “more negative cycle of action-and-reaction” involving both nations’ nuclear arsenals.

As Trenin and Zhao explain, United States nuclear policy often drives the nuclear policies of Russia and China. Of course, US officials often suggest the obverse: American nuclear policy initiatives are responses to Russian and Chinese defense policies and programs.

There are reasonable and practical ways to short-circuit the new, self-reinforcing worldwide nuclear arms race that is euphemized as “modernization.” As Rosner and Eden point out, the United States could save a lot of money without sacrificing security by taking the “hard decision” to eliminate one of the three legs in its nuclear triad, most likely its land-based nuclear ballistic missiles. As Wolfsthal notes, the United States could adequately deter any adversary with a nuclear arsenal and array of delivery platforms that is significantly smaller (and less expensive) than the Trump administration proposes.

The mere official contemplation of such down-sizing moves in the United States would send a global signal. It's a signal that could well lead to negotiations on slowing or even halting the 21st century modernization sequel to the bad arms race movie the world watched throughout the Cold War. The next Congress should begin contemplating immediately. The world has seen more than enough of this ritual squandering of national resources on weapons of horror that can never reasonably be used.

]]>https://www.uua.org/international/blog/disarmament/wasteful-and-dangerous-worldwide-nuclear-modernization-crazeRenew Nuclear Arms Control, Don't Destroy Ithttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/UuaInternational/~3/jZgxkbBIzlg/renew-nuclear-arms-control-dont-destroy-it
<div class="thumbnail"><img src="https://assets.uua.org/sites/live-new.uua.org/files/styles/square_480x480/public/soviet_inspector_missile.jpg?itok=Nr7WrWjE" style="width:160px;height:initial;float:left;margin-right:1em;margin-bottom:1em;" width="480" height="480" alt="A Soviet inspector examines a BGM-109G Tomahawk ground-launched cruise missile prior to its destruction pursuant to the INF Treaty, October 18, 1988, at Davis-Monthan US Air Force Base in Arizona" title="Photo copyright: US Department of Defense" /></div>
<p class="author"><a href="https://www.uua.org/node/230527">John Burroughs</a></p>
<div class="body"><p><em>The Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and the enterprise of nuclear arms control are at risk, as Andrew Lichterman of Western States Legal Foundation and John Burroughs of </em><em>Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy </em><em>explain in the below <a href="http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/01/renew-nuclear-arms-control-dont-destroy/">IPS opinion piece</a> from January 2, 2019.</em></p></div>
<p class="more"><a href="https://www.uua.org/international/blog/disarmament/renew-nuclear-arms-control-dont-destroy-it">Continue reading Renew Nuclear Arms Control, Don&#039;t Destroy It on UUA.org.</a></p><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/UuaInternational/~4/jZgxkbBIzlg" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>Wed, 23 Jan 2019 12:40 -0500John Burroughshttps://www.uua.org/international/blog/disarmament/renew-nuclear-arms-control-dont-destroy-itRenew Nuclear Arms Control, Don't Destroy It]]>John Burroughs]]>The Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and the enterprise of nuclear arms control are at risk, as Andrew Lichterman of Western States Legal Foundation and John Burroughs of Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy explain in the below IPS opinion piece from January 2, 2019. LCNP and WSLF helped develop a RootsAction-led online campaign enabling constituents to contact their representatives and senators to urge action to save the treaty - please participate! As this piece explains, Congress has the authority and power to do so.

A Soviet inspector examines a BGM-109G Tomahawk ground-launched cruise missile prior to its destruction pursuant to the INF Treaty, October 18, 1988, at Davis-Monthan US Air Force Base in Arizona.

Renew Nuclear Arms Control, Don't Destroy It

Andrew Lichterman and John Burroughs

A hard-earned lesson of the Cold War is that arms control reduces the risk of nuclear war by limiting dangerous deployments and, even more important, by creating channels of communication and understanding. But President Donald Trump and his National Security Advisor John Bolton appear to have forgotten, or never learned, that lesson.

In late October, Trump announced an intent to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo subsequently stated that the US will suspend implementation of the treaty in early February. While US signals have been mixed, initiation of withdrawal at that point or soon thereafter appears likely.

Agreed to in 1987 by the United States and the Soviet Union, the INF Treaty prohibits the two countries from deploying both nuclear and conventional missiles with ranges between 310 and 3420 miles.

The main reason cited for withdrawal is that Russia has tested and deployed ground-launched cruise missiles the treaty prohibits. Russia denies that the missiles violate the treaty and has made its own accusations, foremost that US ballistic missile defense launchers installed in Eastern Europe could be used to house treaty-prohibited cruise missiles.

On December 21, the United States opposed a Russia-sponsored UN General Assembly resolution calling for preservation of the treaty and for the two countries to consult on compliance with its obligations. The Russian representative said that US withdrawal "is the start of a full-fledged arms race."

The US representative conveyed that the only way to save the treaty is for Russia to stop violating it. On behalf of the European Union, which opposed the resolution as a diversion, an Austrian diplomat said that erosion of the treaty will have critical consequences for Europe and beyond, dialogue between the US and Russia remains essential, and Russia should demonstrate compliance.

A representative of China, which supported the resolution, said the treaty is important for global stability, and cast doubt on prospects for making it multilateral. The General Assembly rejected the resolution by a vote of 46 against to 43 in favor, with 78 abstentions.

The INF Treaty allows either party to withdraw on six-month's notice "if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests." The treaty also includes a bilateral mechanism for resolving disputes over compliance. The Trump administration has firmly asserted that Russia has violated the treaty, and NATO states have backed that assertion.

But the administration has not made the case that the missiles in question pose a threat that significantly affects the military balance between Russia and the very large and capable forces of the United States and its NATO allies, much less constitute an "extraordinary" development jeopardizing US "supreme interests."

On December 14, a Russian official stated that Russia is open to mutual inspections regarding claimed violations.

President Trump has also indicated that withdrawal is premised in part on a buildup of intermediate-range missiles by China, which is not a party to the treaty. Here too no case has been made that these missiles, which are based in China's national territory, are best answered in kind by US deployment of intermediate-range missiles.

Nor has it been demonstrated that peace and stability in that region or the world will be enhanced by repudiating the treaty rather than seeking more comprehensive arms control measures aimed at braking an emerging multipolar arms race. Further, in either Europe or Asia, US ground-based intermediate-range missiles would have to be deployed in other countries.

This likely would spark opposition from their populations-a factor that three decades ago contributed to the negotiation of the INF Treaty itself.

In sum, the INF Treaty should not be abandoned lightly. It remains a key element of the arms control framework limiting nuclear weapons and arms racing. Often forward deployed and intermingled with other forces, the missiles the treaty prohibits are among the weapons most likely to lead to miscalculation or misadventure in a crisis.

And the danger of crisis miscalculation, of a disastrous misunderstanding of an adversary's mindset, is real. At the time the INF Treaty was being negotiated, some US strategists viewed their nuclear-armed missiles in Europe as useful for convincing "demonstration" shots to show a commitment to defend Europe with nuclear weapons with less risk of escalation to a catastrophic nuclear war.

A 1987 Washington Post article summarized NATO thinking: "A final advantage of the INF weapons is that NATO planners believe that they could use a single Pershing II or cruise missile, rather than another nuclear weapon, with somewhat less risk of triggering an all-out nuclear war."

But we now know that Soviet military leaders, strongly influenced by the World War II national trauma of a homeland devastated and millions dead, saw things quite differently. In an article published in Survival only last year, Alexei Arbatov, a Russian arms negotiator and parliamentarian, notes that in 1983 Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov, head of the Soviet General Staff, made clear that the Soviet Union would not allow itself to be taken by surprise, as it had been in 1941. Ogarkov stated, "We will start the offensive if we are obliged to do it, and as soon as we discover the first evidence of the beginning of nuclear attack by NATO." And in so doing, he said, "We will deliver dozens and, if need be, a hundred nuclear strikes to break through NATO's deep defense echelon."

Arbatov recounted this little-known history to support a subtle but critical point about arms control. Even when prospects for arms control progress seem dim, constant efforts to negotiate create channels of communication that are invaluable in a crisis. They also build institutions devoted to understanding not only the capabilities of an adversary but also their intentions, their fundamental interests and their deepest fears.

But a long hiatus in serious arms control efforts and a climate of deepening hostility have eroded the diplomatic and military-to-military contacts between Russia and the United States. And in the triumphalism of the long post-Cold War period, U.S. arms control institutions such as the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency were downgraded or allowed to atrophy.

With tensions growing among nuclear-armed countries in potential flashpoints from Ukraine to the South China Sea, it is long past time to rebuild the capacity of the US government to negotiate intelligently with its nuclear-armed adversaries.

The best course would be to use the dispute over the INF Treaty as a moment to renew, rather than discard, the negotiating frameworks and institutions that played a significant role in avoiding catastrophe during the Cold War.

However, Trump and Bolton have expressed general hostility to any international obligation that might limit US use of force or military capabilities. Both see negotiations as a zero-sum game to be won or lost. Neither seems capable of imagining international agreements that benefit all parties and make the world a safer place.

So Congress must act, to preserve enough of a fragile status quo to leave space for future diplomacy. As former senator Russell Feingold has explained, there is a legitimate question as to whether it is constitutional for a president to withdraw from a Senate-ratified treaty over Congressional opposition.

However, such core foreign policy controversies seldom are finally resolved by the courts. Congress in any case has the practical power to prevent the administration from taking action contrary to the INF Treaty. Most important, it can refuse to fund weapons testing, production, or deployment that would violate the treaty.

Senator Jeff Merkley and six colleagues already have introduced the Prevention of Arms Race Act of 2018 (S.3667). It characterizes withdrawal from the INF Treaty without consultation with Congress as "a serious breach of Congress's proper constitutional role as a co-equal branch of government," and erects barriers to spending on missiles that would violate the treaty.

Despite intense antagonism during the Cold War, the US and Russia were able to negotiate agreements like the INF Treaty to address the riskiest elements of their nuclear confrontation. The time to start building a climate for negotiations is now. Waiting for a crisis may be too late.

]]>https://www.uua.org/international/blog/disarmament/renew-nuclear-arms-control-dont-destroy-itBuilding a Just World Through Climate Actionhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/UuaInternational/~3/VvZrTOCdkG4/building-just-world-through-climate-action
<div class="thumbnail"><img src="https://assets.uua.org/sites/live-new.uua.org/files/styles/square_480x480/public/city.jpg?itok=lKvFaHKr" style="width:160px;height:initial;float:left;margin-right:1em;margin-bottom:1em;" width="480" height="480" alt="Landscape view of a city next to a green space." title="Photo copyright Jimmy Tan/Flickr" /></div>
<p class="author"><a href="https://www.uua.org/node/227071">Roy Meredith</a></p>
<div class="body"><p>Inaction has consequences. And inaction in the face of humanity’s ultimate challenge – climate change – will leave us and future generations with a planet that is hotter, poorer, and more violent.</p></div>
<p class="more"><a href="https://www.uua.org/international/blog/building-just-world-through-climate-action">Continue reading Building a Just World Through Climate Action on UUA.org.</a></p><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/UuaInternational/~4/VvZrTOCdkG4" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>Thu, 10 Jan 2019 10:00 -0500Roy Meredithhttps://www.uua.org/international/blog/building-just-world-through-climate-actionBuilding a Just World Through Climate Action]]>Roy Meredith]]>

Inaction has consequences. And inaction in the face of humanity’s ultimate challenge – climate change – will leave us and future generations with a planet that is hotter, poorer, and more violent. Time is running out. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that we have twelve years left to limit global warming to 1.5° Celsius to prevent the most catastrophic damage. Given that the global economy still derives four-fifths of its energy from fossil fuels, radical action to limit carbon emissions is imperative.

Does that radicalism, however, justify rebuilding society from scratch? Many activists, for example, believe that decarbonization demands replacing our current economic and political systems with public control of capital. Maybe they’re right. The damage already wrought by global warming is ample justification to reexamine some of the priorities that have guided economic policy in the developed world since the Industrial Revolution. Such massive coordination of economic activity without the price signals of a competitive market, however, has been attempted before. The results have consistently been suboptimal, even in countries as different from each other as Sweden and Venezuela.

Perhaps this time will be different; the sense of urgency could mobilize enough residents and industries to act quickly and effectively. In the United States, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently galvanized the Democratic Party with her push for a Green New Deal. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi referred to climate change as the “existential threat of our time” on the first day of the new Congress and established the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis. The Democratic Party’s more centrist establishment probably wouldn’t have come out so strongly on climate policy without Representative Ocasio-Cortez and the forceful insistence of other young progressives. Still, attempting to remake society so drastically risks overshooting the target and could further divide lobbyists and policymakers on the issue.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez speaks to activists with the Sunrise Movement protesting in the offices of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in Washington D.C., on Nov. 13, 2018.

I lean towards the camp that believes our existing liberal institutions can accommodate vigorous measures to protect the environment. That work begins with reforming our markets so both producers and consumers can internalize the costs of pollution in their transactions, either through carbon taxes or emissions trading. Such measures clearly fall within the government’s purview in a liberal, free-market democracy. Even many economically conservative policy analysts agree the public sector should either regulate or impose costs on polluters. Industry titans who recognize the promises of green technology have also pressured governments in recent years to take aggressive action and promote sustainable investment. However the Yellow Vest protests in France show that much of the public isn’t in love with carbon pricing without additional measures to soften its impact on vulnerable people. Politicians should take notice if they are serious about stopping climate change.

Each strategy I mentioned above has its share of strengths and weaknesses, and we should view them as complimentary paradigms. It was in this spirit that I asked Jan Dash, a theoretical physicist and financial analyst who manages the Climate Portal, and Vonda Brunsting, a labor activist and fellow at the Hauser Institute for Civil Society, to speak at an event I organized for the Unitarian Universalist United Nations Office last December. Both emphasize in their work that social justice must be part of any effective climate policy. Brunsting has written about the urgency of a “just transition”, where businesses and investors engage with activists to ensure that no communities are left financially stranded while our society makes the leap from fossil fuels to clean energy. Dash’s experience working in the financial sector has made him attuned to the risks that climate change poses to the economy, and how individual firms are responding to those threats.

Optimism is warranted despite the challenges ahead. Public support for climate action in the United States is robust - according to a 2018 survey by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, a clear majority in all but three of the nation’s 435 congressional districts supports federal policies to protect the Earth from global warming. The pressure to act is finally high enough that some Republican lawmakers are introducing or cosponsoring legislation that taxes carbon and returns the money to the people, either though infrastructure spending or a universal dividend. President Trump and his ring of fossil fuel sycophants notwithstanding, activists of all political stripes are making the fight to stop climate change a bipartisan cause in the United States once again.

]]>https://www.uua.org/international/blog/building-just-world-through-climate-actionA Personal View on Disarmamenthttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/UuaInternational/~3/opinpBiWK1c/personal-view-disarmament
<div class="thumbnail"><img src="https://assets.uua.org/sites/live-new.uua.org/files/styles/square_480x480/public/quiltofbelonging2597.jpg?itok=s1X0Usuj" style="width:160px;height:initial;float:left;margin-right:1em;margin-bottom:1em;" width="480" height="480" alt="Photo of the Quilt of Belonging at the 2018 Parliament of the World&#039;s Religions in Toronto" title="Image copyright UUA International Office" /></div>
<p class="author"><a href="https://www.uua.org/node/213003">Joanne Dufour</a></p>
<div class="body"><p><em>The following was graciously submitted by Georgina Long, the Interfaith Coordinator for the <a href="https://brahmakumaris.uk/">Brahma Kumaris UK</a>, whom I had the pleasure of meeting at the Parliament of the World's Religions in Toronto, Canada in November.</em></p></div>
<p class="more"><a href="https://www.uua.org/international/blog/disarmament/personal-view-disarmament">Continue reading A Personal View on Disarmament on UUA.org.</a></p><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/UuaInternational/~4/opinpBiWK1c" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>Mon, 07 Jan 2019 14:15 -0500Joanne Dufourhttps://www.uua.org/international/blog/disarmament/personal-view-disarmamentA Personal View on Disarmament]]>Joanne Dufour]]>The following was graciously submitted by Georgina Long, the Interfaith Coordinator for the Brahma Kumaris UK, whom I had the pleasure of meeting at the Parliament of the World's Religions in Toronto, Canada in November.

"Quilt of Belonging" on display at the 2018 Parliament of the World's Religions

An elderly, charming lady approached me on the Brahma Kumaris stand at the World Parliament of Religions in Toronto, Canada and said she was looking for persons from different religions to contribute to a blog. I believe the word used is to “post” a blog.

The subject was Disarmament.

Firstly being an elderly lady myself with no experience of blogs I rather demurred.

However the subject “disarmament” kept coming into my thoughts with what was our organisational stance on such a matter? and what was my personal view?

So a few thoughts …

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University are totally against any form of violence and the regular student works internally to produce a peaceful mind with a harmonious attitude. There is a deep understanding that it is peaceless thoughts which create real disharmony whether it is in the family, the workplace, or the country I live in. This all ripples out; being peaceless is infectious!

If I can disarm myself from anger and fear I can create a positive and peaceful environment. So, for the Brahma Kumaris, disarmament starts from within. There is no financial cost to this inner work! A building of a fully balanced creative, loving human being at one with the world around him or her is more potent than any weapon. No gun is needed to protect the self or others.

Our world cries out for peace and harmony; for rest and safety and deep within us we know that violence is never the answer. Each one of us has the key to open the door to a society free from fear.

A 72 year old grandmother, student, teacher, and meditator says to you Come! Take up the baton! Come off the battlefield, go within and find that peace, love and bliss that is your original state of being!. We can then disarm the Planet!!

]]>https://www.uua.org/international/blog/disarmament/personal-view-disarmamentA New Year's Resolution Proposal: Put Disarmament on the Agenda for Immediate Attentionhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/UuaInternational/~3/VjmQlPIhb-4/new-years-resolution-proposal-put-disarmament-agenda-immediate
<div class="thumbnail"><img src="https://assets.uua.org/sites/live-new.uua.org/files/styles/square_480x480/public/castle_romeo_bikini-atoll.jpg?itok=EkeVzkal" style="width:160px;height:initial;float:left;margin-right:1em;margin-bottom:1em;" width="480" height="480" alt="The “Castle Romeo” nuclear test of a hydrogen bomb in the atmosphere over Bikini Atoll, Marshal Islands." title="Flickr/The Official CTBTO Photostream (Public Domain)" /></div>
<p class="author"><a href="https://www.uua.org/node/213003">Joanne Dufour</a></p>
<div class="body"><p><em>The following blog is taken from a talk given by Guy Quinlan to the Harvard Club of New York City in September 2018 on the book by Daniel Ellsberg<strong>, The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner</strong>,<strong> </strong>and is reprinted with his kind permission. Please refer to <a href="https://www.uua.org/sites/live-new.uua.org/files/doomsdaytalkguyquinlansept51018.pdf">this original document</a> for citations of works cited.</em></p></div>
<p class="more"><a href="https://www.uua.org/international/blog/disarmament/new-years-resolution-proposal-put-disarmament-agenda-immediate">Continue reading A New Year&#039;s Resolution Proposal: Put Disarmament on the Agenda for Immediate Attention on UUA.org.</a></p><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/UuaInternational/~4/VjmQlPIhb-4" height="1" width="1" alt=""/>Wed, 26 Dec 2018 12:00 -0500Joanne Dufourhttps://www.uua.org/international/blog/disarmament/new-years-resolution-proposal-put-disarmament-agenda-immediateA New Year's Resolution Proposal: Put Disarmament on the Agenda for Immediate Attention]]>Joanne Dufour]]>The following blog is taken from a talk given by Guy Quinlan to the Harvard Club of New York City in September 2018 on the book by Daniel Ellsberg, The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner,and is reprinted with his kind permission. Please refer to this original document for citations of works cited.

The “Castle Romeo” nuclear test of a hydrogen bomb in the atmosphere over Bikini Atoll, Marshal Islands.

Ellsberg’s thesis is that the survival of the human species is in imminent and increasing danger, and that the defense policies of the United States and other nuclear powers are increasing that danger – a subject worthy of some serious attention. Despite good reviews…, the book created very little stir. Perhaps, after all, that should not have been surprising. Although Ellsberg’s book adds a great deal of useful historical background, the crucial facts have been publicly known for years. Similar warnings have been issued before, by former Presidents, cabinet officers, and high ranking military commanders. And yet, the subject is not high on the public agenda. A former Secretary of Defense said recently: “The danger of a nuclear calamity is greater now than during the Cold War, yet most people seem blissfully unaware of it.”

The title of Ellsberg’s book, The Doomsday Machine, is a term coined in the 1950s by nuclear war planners, referring to a hypothetical device which could destroy all human life on Earth. As Ellsberg notes, such a device seemed to be only hypothetical then, as far as people knew at the time. The term “doomsday machine” was introduced into wider use in 1964 by the film “Dr. Strangelove”, Stanley Kubrick’s sardonic comedy about nuclear war with the subtitle “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.” Today it almost seems that most people have learned, if not to love the bomb, at least to accept it as a permanent feature of modern life, something we can live with into the indefinite future. But, as Ellsberg’s book shows in grim detail, that is not a tenable option.

The book opens with an epigraph from the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche: “Madness in individuals is something rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs it is the rule.” Ellsberg frequently uses the vocabulary of madness in describing the accumulation of nuclear arsenals sufficient to extinguish human life on the planet. After recounting incidents in which the world came within minutes of accidental nuclear war, he declares that keeping nuclear missiles on hair trigger alert is “criminally insane.” And yet here too there is a paradox: this insane situation is the product of decades of careful analysis by presumably sane and intelligent people.

While Ellsberg took an active part in planning nuclear strategy under two Administrations, he changed dramatically. Perhaps the most critical factor in moving Ellsberg to the conviction that the nuclear enterprise was irrational and immoral was his growing revulsion at the casualness with which nuclear war planners discussed extinguishing hundreds of millions of human lives. He describes (p. 99 et seq.) a top-level briefing on nuclear war fighting plans, near the end of the Eisenhower administration, in which among other things the general making the presentation said that the American attack would kill 300 million Chinese. Someone in the audience asked (p. 102): “What if this isn’t China’s war? What if this is just a war with the Soviets? Can you change the plan?” Some in the audience were stunned by the response: “Well yeah,” said General Power resignedly, “we can, but I hope nobody thinks of it, because it would really screw up the plan.” Only one voice was raised in protest at this, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, who said (p.103): “All I can say is, any plan that murders three hundred million Chinese when it might not even be their war is not a good plan. That is not the American way ....” Ellsberg comments: “It was, however, the American plan. Though President Eisenhower was distressed when his science advisor... reported to him the tremendous amount of overkill in the plan, Eisenhower endorsed [it] without any modification and passed it on to John F. Kennedy a month later.”

In the early 1980s, when the number of nuclear weapons in the world was approaching its Cold War peak of almost 70,000, scientific research began to appear about the climate effects which would result from the smoke which would be generated by nuclear fire storms. Climate models then available indicated that smoke lingering in the atmosphere, and thus blocking sunlight, could cause drastic drops in temperature and severe disruption of world agriculture. The resulting publicity about what came to be called “nuclear winter” came to the attention of both Ronald Reagan and Soviet President Gorbachev, and they took it seriously. Both have said that it was one of the motivations for their joint declaration that: “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought,” and for subsequent agreements sharply reducing the number of nuclear weapons. However, with the end of the Cold War and the lowering of international tensions, the concept of nuclear winter largely dropped out of public consciousness.

About a decade ago, motivated by increasing concern about nuclear risk and worsening relations between the US and Russia, a number of scientists reopened the inquiry into the climate effects of nuclear war. This time, of course, the climate models and computer resources available to them had improved enormously since the 1980s. The results of the new research showed that the early concerns about nuclear winter had, in fact, been greatly understated. The smoke generated by a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia, even at the lower number of weapons permitted by the New START Treaty, would linger in the upper atmosphere for a decade, dropping temperatures to levels not seen since the last Ice Age, and causing a collapse of world agriculture. One scientist reviewing the new data commented that the Cold War concept of “Mutually Assured Destruction” (MAD) had been replaced by Self-Assured Destruction, because any country initiating a nuclear war would literally be committing suicide.

The scientific findings further indicated that even a much smaller nuclear exchange, for example a regional war between India and Pakistan, would cause global disaster. If India and Pakistan were to each use 50 Hiroshima-sized bombs on cities- that is, a very small fraction of one per cent of the world’s nuclear arsenal- the resulting climate impact on agriculture would put two billion people at risk of famine.

One might reasonably wonder how the world’s nuclear powers have reacted to this information. So far as the public record indicates, they have simply ignored it, continuing to refine and modernize nuclear arsenals which none of them could use without committing national suicide. Efforts to call governmental attention to the crucial data have so far met no success. During the waning days of the Obama administration, two arms control groups were able to get a meeting with White House staff, and urged that the President should call attention to the nuclear winter findings in a major speech; the staff seemed receptive, but nothing came of it. On one occasion several U.S. Senators sought to offer an amendment to the defense appropriations bill, calling for a study of the data by the National Academy of Sciences, but the Senate leadership said there was no room for the proposal on the legislative calendar.

This information about nuclear winter, in large part, is what provokes Ellsberg’s rhetoric about insanity. He describes several earlier incidents in which the United States and Russia have already come within minutes of accidental nuclear war, by human or computer error. In one case, for example, a defective computer chip at the North American Air Defense Command falsely reported incoming Soviet missiles. The mistake was discovered just as the National Security Advisor was about to call the President, informing him of an attack and recommending a retaliatory strike on the Soviet Union. Several times Ellsberg mentions the incredible fact that, despite these experiences of near-catastrophe, the U.S. and Russia still maintain hundreds of nuclear missiles on hair trigger alert, ready to be launched on a few minutes notice.

And the news gets even worse. Rapid developments in nuclear weapons technology, including delivery systems which are faster and harder to detect, are increasing the risk of accidental war. In 2015 an international panel of retired military experts, chaired by a former Vice Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, found that “warning and decision times are getting shorter, and consequently the potential for catastrophic human error in nuclear control systems is growing larger.” This warning was echoed in a 2017 report by the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research. The UN report noted that, in some earlier nuclear close calls, erroneous automatic warnings had been overridden by human judgment, and it cautioned that increased reliance on automated systems “can lead to misplaced confidence while introducing new points of vulnerability.” This year, after Ellsberg’s book appeared, the RAND Corporation issued a report on a conference of researchers and national security experts on the increasing application of artificial intelligence (AI) to military technology. The summary of the RAND report notes that “participants appeared to agree that advanced Artificial Intelligence could severely compromise nuclear strategic stability and thereby increase the risk of nuclear war.” (Please refer to original document accessible above for citations).

As to the issue of cyber hacking… In 2018, after Ellsberg’s book was published, a report on nuclear cyber security was issued by Chatham House, the think tank sponsored by the Royal Institute for International Affairs in the United Kingdom. The Chatham House report noted that: “Nuclear weapons systems were first developed at a time when computer capabilities were in their infancy and little consideration was given to potential malicious cyber vulnerabilities. Many of the assumptions on which current nuclear strategies are based predate the current widespread use of digital technology in nuclear command, control and communications systems. There are a number of vulnerabilities and pathways through which a malicious actor may infiltrate a nuclear weapons system without a state’s knowledge... At times of heightened tension, cyber attacks on nuclear weapons systems could cause an escalation which results in their use.”

The danger of accidental nuclear war further increased in February 2018 when the U.S. Administration released the new Nuclear Posture Review, i.e. the declassified summary of the nation’s nuclear strategy. Among other things, the Review calls for the development of new low-yield nuclear weapons, intended to give the President more flexible options. This could lower the threshold at which nuclear weapons might actually be used, breaking a taboo which has lasted (despite the close calls) since 1945. The Review also raises the possibility of a nuclear response to a non-nuclear attack on military communications systems; experts have warned that this increases the risk of unintended escalation, because of the extensive entanglement of nuclear and non-nuclear communications networks.

The Hiroshima Chamber of Industry and Commerce was the only building remotely close to standing near the center of the atomic bomb blast of August 6, 1945. It was left unrepaired as a reminder of the event.

Readers are encouraged to check previous blogs for information also included in Guy Quinlan’s article:

But note some good news from the Disarmament Times: Thursday, December 6, 2018

UN: General Assembly Adopts 67 Disarmament Drafts, Calling for Greater Collective Action to Reduce Arsenals, Improve Trust amid Rising Global Tensions Aligning itself with the recommendations of its First Committee (Disarmament and International Security), the General Assembly adopted 63 resolutions and 4 decisions today, bringing to a close its consideration of the current arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation issues on its agenda alongside emerging cybersecurity and information technology threats. Renewing the determination of all States to take collective action towards ridding the planet of atomic bombs, the Assembly, by a recorded vote of 162 in favour to 4 against (China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Syria), with 23 abstentions [including the United States], adopted the resolution “United action with renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons”, which endeavors to ease international tensions and strengthen trust between States. Prior to passing the resolution as a whole, the Assembly decided, by separate recorded votes, to retain a total of 13 paragraphs. These included provisions which, among other things, expressed deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons use and urged all States possessing them to undertake all efforts to address the risks of unintended detonations. (UN).

This writer hopes that one of your New year’s resolutions will in fact be to Put Disarmament on the Agenda of Your Affiliations for Immediate Attention. In the meantime, best wishes for a Happy New Year!